User talk:MarkSzpakowski

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 07:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hello, Mark! Your reputation precedes you! (From communications with Jack.) I've been hoping a former insider would eventually show up and correct errors on the Prograph page. --RJCraig 23:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Shambhala Buddhism
Dear Mark, I'm curious as to why you changed "dharma heir" to "Shambhala heir" Sylvain1972 02:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sylvain, because that's more accurate. Chogyam Trungpa made a clear distinction between the Buddhist and Shambhala lineages, as evident in language, forms of address, etc. The Vajra Regent Osel Tendzin was the Dharma heir; the (then) Sawang Osel Mukpo was the Shambhala heir: both empowerments were explicitly sealed with appropriate ceremonies, in 1976 and 1979 respectively. Cf also Chogyam Trungpa's will at . Beyond this, "the Shambhala vision does not distinguish a Buddhist from a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu." (from Great Eastern Sun, The Wisdom of Shambhala, p 133). Elsewhere he says of a Shambhala practice: "It is a self-contained practice. It is not particularly borrowed from buddhism, but it is simply self-existent in the Shambhala style." The secular but sacred character of Shambhala was important to Trungpa, what he felt the world needed now, and this was what the Shambhala lineage was meant to transmit. That Shambhala Buddhism is expressing something somewhat different does not alter this distinction, which I think is important to recognize. -szpak 03:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Addition of self-published books
Dowman's Dzogchen Now is CreateSpace, I believe. We don't list author's self-published works. Skyerise (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Who's "we" in "we don't list author's self-published works"? This book, by a translator who has translated many Dzogchen texts, is available on Amazon and elsewhere, and is used in study and practice groups on Longchenpa. szpak (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We is Wikipedia. It violates two policies, WP:SPS and WP:PROMO. Self-published works are not considered to be reliable sources. There is a reason Dowman's previous publishers stopped publishing his works: their editorial boards decided he had strayed in his interpretation too far from the authentic traditional teachings. Another translator who now self-publishes has a different story: his translations were inferior. Wikipedia policy prohibits the promotion of or use of books as sources which were not vetted by an independent editorial process for exactly these types of reasons: editors provide quality control, something that self-publishing allows writers to bypass. Skyerise (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:PROMO applies here in any way. Please be specific.
 * Re what you state about Dowman's publishers' editorial boards saying he had "strayed in his interpretation too far from the authentic traditional teachings", is it really Wikipedia's job to take sides in interpretation of philosophical or religious topics? I am involved with long-term study & practice of Longchenpa with several groups, and we use multiple translations, including Dowman's, along with the Tibetan (so we can check how key terms are being translated). szpak (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is Wikipedia's job to present only quality sources. We don't have to judge the source itself, we simply require that sources and listed recommendations are published by independent publishers who themselves fulfill that function. Our policies do not allow the use of self-published works published through Amazon Creative Services, CreateSpace, Lulu.com, or vanity presses. That's where we draw the line: if an author cannot find or chooses not to find an independent publisher, they fail one of the guidelines that we use to ensure reliability of sources. And WP:PROMO applies because its a publisher's job to promote a book. If the book does not meet our independent publishing guidelines, listing it in a Wikipedia article is considered promoting it. Your statements about study groups simply indicates that you may have a conflict of interest and should review our policies on editing when you may have such a conflict. None of what you say about your study group obliges Wikipedia to list the books that you use. Skyerise (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)